OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

New NDAA Would Give the Military Clandestine Cyberwar Powers

May 8, 2012 - by Donny Shaw

Remember the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its language “affirming” the military’s power to indefinitely detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, without charge or trial? Well, the 2013 NDAA bill begins its journey through the legislative process tomorrow morning in the House Armed Services Committee; take a look at what power they’ll be trying to affirm for the Defense Department this time around:

SEC.941 MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN CYBERSPACE.

Section 954 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1551) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘SEC. 954. MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN CYBERSPACE.

‘‘(a) AFFIRMATION.—Congress affirms that the Secretary of Defense is authorized to conduct military activities in cyberspace.

‘‘(b) AUTHORITY DESCRIBED.—The authority referred to in subsection (a) includes the authority to carry out a clandestine operation in cyberspace—

‘‘(1) in support of a military operation pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (50 U.S.C. 1541 note; Public Law 107-40) against a target located outside of the United States; or

‘‘(2) to defend against a cyber attack against an asset of the Department of Defense.

‘‘(c ) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Defense to conduct military activities in cyberspace.’’.

Primary source here for now. This language is from a just-released chairman’s mark that is not yet available on OC.

Congress has already given the Department of Defense some cyberwar powers. Under current law, the DoD can conduct “offensive operations in cyberspace” at the discretion of the President and in the context of a declared war. The new language would expand the DoD’s cyberwar powers by authorizing clandestine operations, removing the requirement for presidential approval, and expanding the authority beyond declared war by authorizing cyberwar actions response to cyberattacks against the military.

More from NetGov, TechDirt

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.
 

Comments

  • RML 05/10/2012 12:36pm

    May all negative intentions be exposed and dealt with accordingly. All the bad must END NOW! This man is sick and tired of living in Roman slavery. Grow up, you bunch of thieving lying silly asses! May god have mercy on their souls.

  • Bnewfield 05/11/2012 12:06am

    The attitude that most Americans have towards NDAA is pretty scary. A lot of them have never even heard of them before. I asked one person what he thought of NDAA and he said “I don’t know, I don’t keep up with conspiracy theory stuff.” A law that allows US citizens to be detained by the military and shipped to Guantanamo Bay, and it’s a “conspiracy theory?” And now they can conduct military operations online (what that means, I shudder to think..) I guess the transition to a dictatorship will be quite easy if people have attitudes like that. If you don’t believe that martial law could happen here, just take a look at http://www.martiallawusa.com/wp/?p=26. All the proof is there.

  • flowerwine 05/12/2012 7:17am

    The unconstitutional National Defense Authorization Act needs to be vetoed. Did the government mistakenly kill innocent people in Libya and Afghanistan? Yes. So it is proven the government makes wrong judgments all the times. Does the government make mistakes when they send defendants to trials? Yes. So many defendants are proven innocent /released after their fair trials. Without a fair trial, every defendant sent to the court would be judged guilty and sentenced to a life sentence. Should any law allow indefinite detention of US citizens without a fair trial then? NO.

  • flowerwine 05/12/2012 7:32am

    I can understand the military activities in cyberspace in the event of a cyber attack initiated by hackers. But cyber attacks should not be mixed up with the freedom of speech. Will an individual’s freedom of speech be interpreted as a cyber attack thus subject the individual to the military detention without a fair trial? So this bill should be vetoed too because the UNLIMITED cyber war power goes way beyond actions to respond to cyber attacks.

    ‘‘expanding the authority beyond declared war by authorizing cyberwar actions response to cyberattacks against the military…

    (c ) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Defense to conduct military activities in cyberspace.’’.

  • Rouge 05/14/2012 1:01pm

    Given the worst scenario, a cyber attack or a a cyber theft, the victim is still alive and well. Should the lethal war power be used to combat the non-lethal cyber crime?

    In the movie, Minority Report, targets are identified based on an oracle’s premonition before the targets start plotting illegal acts. Will the cyber worriers sense dangerous people using their ESP then use their cyber war power to jail the targets without a trial? What if a corrupt cyber cop gets paid to put an innocent away without a fair trial, and in this case, without any reality check? Poets write war sonnets and writers write war novels on line too. Bloggers shout “go to hell” on line all the times. Will these be enough to alert cyber cops into exercising their war power to attack (the target in the reality world) first then ask later?

    This bill is worse than NDAA. It’s not unconstitutional, it’s a war against the American constitution. So it needs to be vetoed.

  • Rouge 05/14/2012 1:01pm

    Given the worst scenario, a cyber attack or a a cyber theft, the victim is still alive and well. Should the lethal war power be used to combat the non-lethal cyber crime?

  • Rouge 05/14/2012 1:01pm

    Will the cyber worriers sense dangerous people using their ESP then use their cyber war power to jail the targets without a trial? What if a corrupt cyber cop gets paid to put an innocent away without a fair trial, and in this case, without any reality check? Poets write war sonnets and writers write war novels on line too. Bloggers shout “go to hell” on line all the times. Will these be enough to alert cyber cops into exercising their war power to attack (the target in the reality world) first then ask later?

    This bill is worse than NDAA. It’s not unconstitutional, it’s a war against the American constitution. So it needs to be vetoed.

  • Rouge 05/14/2012 1:02pm

    What if a corrupt cyber cop gets paid to put an innocent away without a fair trial, and in this case, without any reality check? Poets write war sonnets and writers write war novels on line too. Bloggers shout “go to hell” on line all the times. Will these be enough to alert cyber cops into exercising their war power to attack (the target in the reality world) first then ask later?

    This bill is worse than NDAA. It’s not unconstitutional, it’s a war against the American constitution. So it needs to be vetoed.

  • Rouge 05/14/2012 1:03pm

    What if a corrupt cyber worrier gets paid to put an innocent away without a fair trial, and in this case, without any reality check? Bloggers shout “go to hell” on line all the times. Will these be enough to alert cyber cops into exercising their war power to attack (the target in the reality world) first then ask later?

    This bill is worse than NDAA. It’s not unconstitutional, it’s a war against the American constitution. So it needs to be vetoed.

  • Rouge 05/14/2012 1:04pm

    Bloggers shout “go to hell” on line all the times. Will these be enough to alert cyber cops into exercising their war power to attack (the target in the reality world) first then ask later?

    This bill is worse than NDAA. It’s not unconstitutional, it’s a war against the American constitution. So it needs to be vetoed.

  • Rouge 05/14/2012 1:04pm

    Bloggers shout “go to hell” on line all the times. Will these be enough to alert cyber cops into exercising their war power to attack (the target in the reality world) first then ask later?

  • Rouge 05/14/2012 1:05pm

    This bill is worse than NDAA. It’s not unconstitutional, it’s a war against the American constitution. So it needs to be vetoed.

  • Rouge 05/14/2012 1:07pm

    Will this be enough to alert cyber cops into exercising their war power to attack (the target in the reality world) first then ask later?

  • Rouge 05/14/2012 1:08pm

    Cuber cops can not be allowed to exercising their war power to attack (the target in the reality world) first then ask later in non-lethal or acutally innocent situations.

  • Rouge 05/14/2012 1:13pm

    Cyber cops can not be allowed to exercising their war power to attack (the target in the reality world) first then ask later in non-lethal or likely innocent situations.

  • hollister 05/15/2012 11:20pm

    Military force is the people that don’t want to see, we just want to peace, please protect natural and peace. For citizens for daily can eat, can sleep, can get to the Internet, is the most happy things, of course, the occasional Internet http://www.hollisterukoutlets.co.uk/ shopping for hollister clothes.

  • Rouge 05/16/2012 4:44am

    Is “Li” the short for Chinese agents with immunity? Thank you for supporting the average Ameican people’s wish to ban NDAA.

  • Spam Comment

  • Bosco 07/30/2012 7:26pm

    This was a really great, interesting and insightful article for me to read. Thanks for sharing this information. workbenches

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.